CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 January 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31193/18 Sonja PLISKE against Germany lodged on 25 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of civil proceedings before the social courts, which started in December 2005/July 2006 and are still pending before the Social Court of Appeal. The applicant requested compensation for 56 months of undue delay. The Social Court of Appeal considered that the proceedings had been unduly delayed with regard to 25 months and awarded EUR 2,500, but rejected the further claim. The Federal Social Court rejected the applicant’s application for legal aid for lack of sufficient prospects of success. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s application for legal aid for a constitutional complaint. It held that the application lacked sufficient prospects of success, inter alia, because not even a lawyer could have substantiated the complaint in an admissible manner. Before the Court, the applicant complained that the length of proceedings had been incompatible with the reasonable time requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She claimed in particular that she still had victim status since she had not obtained adequate compensation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34?   3.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case, having particular regard to the time from July 2009 until November 2009 and from January 2012 until February 2014, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?